Are all creationist dishonest?

[painted wolf]

roflmao.
I was asking why you are so squeamish about putting a number on it.

Perhaps it's because it's not a fixed value?
Given how some posters can crank out posts without catching their responses... others can be slow to give up previously held ideas and still others are full of bull from the get go, it's hard to set a number on when a mistaken idea becomes a full out lie.

*edit: But I see Revoltingest addressed this

wa:do

 

[ellenjanuary]

Absolutely!
I do think that a few creationists do knowingly spread misinformation in order to "help" their cause though.

But the vast majority are not dishonest at all. There is a very important line between dishonest and misinformed or passionate.

And I totally agree, they are not "the enemy", such thinking is poisonous.

wa:do

Nice people like you are why evil people like me cannot step up to regulate.

Yet, they are, well and truly the enemy. The Adversary. They do not respect the scientific method, they do not respect their own sacred text, they do not respect education, they do not respect the freedom of religion... they simply do not care. They proclaim themselves righteous and crusade.

And because so many believe in free expression, compassion, and basic human decency - they cannot equate these upstanding, law-abiding folk merely expressing their faith in the Creator to soulless automaton of the Adversary. Essentially, however, that is just what they are.

How do I know? Scientific method, of course. Built my faith from the ground up, using observational and empirical evidence. Formed hypotheses, conducted experiments, logged the data; simplified the hypothesis and came to a conclusion.

Except for the ol' "miracle in step three" part - I could visualize my faith that usually operates at 99% had curious gray spheres of unknown origin blocking all the gaps - I could even publish... heck, there's gotta be some kinda scientific terminology for step three...

Heck with them fools. Know what I'm looking forward towards? Artificial intelligence and the triple-blind experiment. All this crap actually exists; witchcraft, faith healing, all kind of woo. But what has prevented these pseduos from collating any data consistently is believing in their own theory before even observing - and ignorance, of course. It is a matter of quantum whack, consciousness, and will - but also (since god is not the right term) tao.

Tao is not the kind of thing to prevent human development, but witchcraft is imbalance; the greater the will of the witch, the less the witch will. Simple science that no one seems to understand. Absolute power does not corrupt, absolute power conserves.

Just so, all these words are merely response. A hypothetical, if you will.

 

[painted wolf]

Don't confuse my being nice with my being a push-over. I can wag my tail and bite at the same time if needs be. :wolf:

Unfortunately I understand evolution and the much used standard curve... I know that we will never be rid of the anti-science crowd. It's like a homozygous recessive gene in the population, it will always have a reservoir in the heterozygous population. (barring some severe genetic drift that is)
The best you can do is treat the condition when it's expressed.

wa:do

 

[ellenjanuary]

A Wolf speaks of evolution, a witch speaks of tao; all that is lacking is a round of beer, the days sorrows washed down with a toast.

 

[painted wolf]

A Wolf speaks of evolution, a witch speaks of tao; all that is lacking is a round of beer, the days sorrows washed down with a toast.

Lol... perhaps I'll be able to take you up on that someday. :drunk:

wa:do

 

[Father Heathen]

That analogy fails for very complex subjects.

So what complexities exactly would justify an acceptance of nonsensical superstitions and a denial of scientific study and understanding? Are you saying that it's a valid stance for someone to reject something solely because they couldn't wrap their brain around it?

 

[CyraEm]

So what complexities exactly would justify an acceptance of nonsensical superstitions and a denial of scientific study and understanding? Are you saying that it's a valid stance for someone to reject something solely because they couldn't wrap their brain around it?

Mathematics are concrete. Evolution, or more specifically macro-evolution, is difficult to prove empirically. One can demonstrate it, but in the end it happens over thousands of years and so you can't show it happening. And, for some people, that's what it would take to convince them. Whereas with the equation above you can literally show them with your fingers.

 

[outhouse]

more specifically macro-evolution, is difficult to prove empirically

its already been stated in this thread science doesnt prove anything.

Evolution is an observation of facts and there is NO GRAY area surrounding macro evolution at all.

Macro evolution has been observed.

funny people who use the term micro and macro generally know the least about evolution. Scientist may use that term but creationist use it more.

 

[ellenjanuary]

So what complexities exactly would justify an acceptance of nonsensical superstitions and a denial of scientific study and understanding? Are you saying that it's a valid stance for someone to reject something solely because they couldn't wrap their brain around it?

I believe I once read this article EDGE: SPECULATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE By Kevin Kelly and hypothesized that a triple-blind experiment using artificial intelligence could produce a scientific understanding of actual witchcraft. As a witch who crafts, there's woo in my stew; but there is also real in my deal. I crafted a faith using the scientific method and found alignment with the faithful. If science can provide a measure of same, the future may be surprisingly free from religious nonsense.

 

[RedOne77]

Mathematics are concrete. Evolution, or more specifically macro-evolution, is difficult to prove empirically. One can demonstrate it, but in the end it happens over thousands of years and so you can't show it happening. And, for some people, that's what it would take to convince them. Whereas with the equation above you can literally show them with your fingers.

Macro evolution is defined as evolution at the species level or higher. So speciation is macro evolution, and speciation has been observed in both lab and nature.

Here's a list of some observed instances of speciation from TO: Observed Instances of Speciation

Here's a nice little article I like that shows a species of bird undergoing incipient speciation due to a single point mutation that changes plumage color resulting in reproductive isolation: Study Catches Two Bird Populations As They Split Into Separate Species

So don't let anyone tell you that you can't observe macro evolution, it's been documented in the scientific literature multiple times!

 

[Blackheart]

its already been stated in this thread science doesnt prove anything.

Evolution is an observation of facts and there is NO GRAY area surrounding macro evolution at all.

Macro evolution has been observed.

funny people who use the term micro and macro generally know the least about evolution. Scientist may use that term but creationist use it more.

You still havent revealed any details about macro evolution being observed. IS this something that only you have witnessed?

 

[fantome profane]

You still havent revealed any details about macro evolution being observed. IS this something that only you have witnessed?

Just google “observed speciation”. You will find all the information you need.

 

[Blackheart]

Just google “observed speciation”. You will find all the information you need.

Thanks but it appears to be all about man made genetic hybrid's. I know that if I mate two pedigree dog's im going to get a mix of characteristics. But where are the examples of entirely new genes that advance throughout evolution. When a black person and a white person reproduce their offspring takes on a mix of both genetic pools but they dont evolve wings to make it easier to get through the traffic in the morning and therefore become less likely to loose their job. When that happens let me know because this sounds very much like micro evolution which is not what I thought Outhouse was professing to have witnessed.

 

[fantome profane]

Thanks but it appears to be ....

You didn’t look.

This is an excellent example of what this thread is about. This is a prime example of creationist dishonesty. You have no idea what it appears to be because you didn’t look at the information. Go ahead, tell us that you looked at some of the links, and we will all know beyond doubt that you are lying.

 

[Blackheart]

Lmao! What are you on?!

Of course I looked. Why would I lie? Is this the response you give everyone when they dont see things the way you see them?

 

[ellenjanuary]

You still havent revealed any details about macro evolution being observed. IS this something that only you have witnessed?

Speciation by location, Mr. dishonest, non-observer.

 

[fantome profane]

Lmao! What are you on?!

Of course I looked. Why would I lie? Is this the response you give everyone when they dont see things the way you see them?

If you really want to know what I am “on” all you need to do is google “observed speciation” and then click on a few of those links and read those pages. If you do this you will see why it is so obvious that you have lied.

 

[David M]

Thanks but it appears to be all about man made genetic hybrid's..

Are you ignoring the example I gave, where the same speciation event happened in the wild and then in the lab.

"Are all creationists dishonest" is the subject of the thread, and you are providing ample evidence of the answer.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps it's because it's not a fixed value?
Given how some posters can crank out posts without catching their responses... others can be slow to give up previously held ideas and still others are full of bull from the get go, it's hard to set a number on when a mistaken idea becomes a full out lie.

*edit: But I see Revoltingest addressed this

wa:do

I whole heartily agree that it is a subjective number.
And I will even flat out admit that I personally set the number low.
Much much lower than you and Autodidact.

However, it seems to me that some people do not want to set a number at all.
to me, that is no different than to excuse people, and even encourage, said dishonesty.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You still havent revealed any details about macro evolution being observed. IS this something that only you have witnessed?

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.

Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.

Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium. Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.

Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.

Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.

Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.


etc, etc, etc...